JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 2(19AA) of the Act as a going concern, being demerged, has not been fulfilled. Further, the A.O has pointed out that out of total shares of Sterling i.e. 2,68,01,490 shares; 2,00,510 shares were purchased in F.Y.2006-07, 2,50,000 shares were purchased in F.Y.2007-08 and 31,000 shares were purchased in F.Y2009-10

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

24– creditworthiness Moreover, transactions were made through banking channels - Whether any addition could not be made to assessee's income under section 68-Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee)" (vi) Decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Pratapbhai Virjibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer [2014] 45 taxmann.com 151 wherein it was held as under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

24– creditworthiness Moreover, transactions were made through banking channels - Whether any addition could not be made to assessee's income under section 68-Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee)" (vi) Decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Pratapbhai Virjibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer [2014] 45 taxmann.com 151 wherein it was held as under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

24– creditworthiness Moreover, transactions were made through banking channels - Whether any addition could not be made to assessee's income under section 68-Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee)" (vi) Decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Pratapbhai Virjibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer [2014] 45 taxmann.com 151 wherein it was held as under

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

68,741 despite the fact that the amounts received as subsidy are not taxable for the current assessment year as per section 2(24

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

68,3507- and the same is found justified and hence confirm Further relief of Rs.3,00,31,6507- is granted to the appellant.” 6. Before us, both the assessee and Department are in appeal against the order by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the arguments taken before Ld. CIT(Appeals) to the effect that

SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

68,3507- and the same is found justified and hence confirm Further relief of Rs.3,00,31,6507- is granted to the appellant.” 6. Before us, both the assessee and Department are in appeal against the order by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the arguments taken before Ld. CIT(Appeals) to the effect that

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

24 dated 31.03.2025, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 26.10.2018 declaring

VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

24% interest in question as excessive. The CIT(A) upholds Assessing Officer's action. 3. We have heard both the parties. There is no dispute that both the lower authorities have invoked the impugned section 40A(2)(b) disallowance by benchmarking assessee's interest rate paid in other cases @ 18% to disallow 6% excessive rate in case of above